Duke Energy’s coal ash conundrum and the need for a long-term solution

Duke Energy’s proposed solution to its coal ash conundrum met with continued opposition this week as the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) released a report of its own dubbed “Coal Ash Disposition: The Alternative for North Carolina.” The report argues against the use of ‘landfilling’ coal ash while recommending “proven saltstone technology for the coal ash at Duke Energy's fourteen power plants.”

At present, Duke Energy plans to move coal ash from its retired electricity plants into lined and off-site landfills, a prospect that the BREDL says has a number of negative environmental downsides. According to the BREDL report, “Impartial experts agree that liner failure is inevitable, regardless of the liner type. That all liners will eventually fail is not in dispute. The only question is: How long will it take?”

Meanwhile, officials with the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) have responded that technologies for coal ash disposal and storage locations are being reviewed. DENR’s public information officer, Jamie Kritzer, stated “The [department], the EPA and Duke Energy are looking closely at all of the available technologies for coal ash disposal and the location of where the ash will be stored in the future.” Given the cozy relationship that has existed between Duke Energy and the DENR as well as the typical public interest impotence manifested by the Environmental Protection Agency, I shudder to think what ‘solution’ these organizations will come up with.

What should be clear to decision-makers and private citizens alike is that any solution that will be reached should not pass the problem on to future generations while current technologies allow for long-term coal ash containment solutions.

But clarity is in the eye of the beholder. While saltstone technology may seem like an obvious and well-studied solution to the problem of coal-ash containment, it doesn’t appear to be as obvious to Duke Energy or its government lackeys, which is why private citizen participation and oversight in this process is so important.

So if you have the time, research this issue and come to a conclusion for yourself. And while you’re at it, do what any good citizen of a well-established republic would do, give your elected representatives your respectful opinion on the subject!

Dan River Groups Seek Cleanup of Duke’s Coal Ash Pollution - Southern Environmental Law Center

Contacts:

Kathleen Sullivan, SELC, 919-945-7106 or ksullivan@selcnc.org

Frank Holleman, SELC, 864- 979-9431 or fholleman@selcnc.org

Representing:

Tiffany Haworth, Dan River Basin Association, 336-627-6270 or thaworth@danriver.org

Michael Ward, Roanoke River Basin Association, 276-634-2540 or mward@co.henry.va.us

Ulla Reeves, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, 828-254-6776 x2 or ulla@cleanenergy.org

Pete Harrison, Waterkeeper Alliance, 828-582-0422 or pharrison@waterkeeper.org

Dan River Groups Seek Cleanup of Duke’s Coal Ash Pollution

CHAPEL HILL, N.C.—The Southern Environmental Law Center today filed motions to allow four conservation groups working on the Dan River to participate in the state court enforcement action against Duke Energy for its illegal coal ash pollution of the Dan River and groundwater drinking supplies.  SELC filed the motion on behalf of groups that monitor and protect the Dan River– the Dan River Basin Association, the Roanoke River Basin Association, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and Waterkeeper Alliance.  They identified numerous illegal discharges ignored by the state in the aftermath of Duke’s disastrous coal ash spill last month. 

“The tragic Dan River spill and the revelations of uncomfortably close ties between Duke Energy and DENR make it all the more important that citizens and local conservation groups have a seat at the table,” said Frank Holleman, the senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center who represents the groups in court.  “We will work to make sure that the Dan River is protected and that Duke Energy cleans up the Dan River site.”

The groups seek to stop and clean up unpermitted streams of contaminated surface water that have been discharging from the dikes of the Dan River coal ash lagoons since before the spill and are continuing today, as well as persistent groundwater pollution leaching from these unlined impoundments that documentation shows Duke Energy and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources have known about since the early 1990s.  The illegal discharges at Dan River include high levels of coal ash pollutants such as arsenic and lead.

“It is important that local citizens in the Dan River Basin have a voice in the cleanup of Duke Energy's coal ash pollution and DRBA can represent that voice,” said Allison Szuba, president of the Dan River Basin Association (DRBA) Board of Directors. “DRBA has been serving the North Carolina and Virginia communities in the basin for over a decade and we will continue to do so by doing what is necessary to prevent this from happening again.”

“This spill demonstrates the dire need to remove coal ash from impoundments adjacent to our lakes and rivers and into dry, lined storage,” said Gene Addesso, president of the Roanoke River Basin Association.  “We cannot allow these same negligent actions to continue polluting our water and putting at risk the citizens and businesses within the Roanoke River Basin that depend on this precious natural resource.”

Previously, the North Carolina court allowed other groups to intervene with respect to Duke’s coal ash sites on Mountain Island Lake, north of Charlotte; on Lakes Wylie and Norman along the Catawba River; Duke’s Asheville site; and its Sutton site near Wilmington on the Cape Fear River..  Seven conservation groups around the state have additional motions to intervene currently pending before the court.

“The Dan River site is an ongoing disaster, with illegal discharges pouring out of the coal ash lagoons everywhere you look,” said Waterkeeper Alliance’s Pete Harrison.  “Our rivers should be protected from the scourge of coal ash, and we should make sure that the Dan River is never again subjected to coal ash pollution and a catastrophic spill.”

The Southern Environmental Law Center represented conservation groups in South Carolina in several recent legal challenges, leading to South Carolina utilities SCE&G and Santee Cooper committing to remove 13.4 million tons of coal ash from unlined lagoons at four sites throughout the state.  All the South Carolina coal ash will be moved to dry storage in lined landfills or recycled. 

“The Dan River spill shows all the things that are wrong with the primitive storage of coal ash in unlined, polluting pits next to our waterways,” said Ulla Reeves of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.  “It is long past time that the Dan River site was cleaned up, and moving all the Dan River coal ash away from the river to dry, lined storage should become the model for safe disposal of coal ash.” 

###

About the Southern Environmental Law Center

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of nearly 60 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. www.SouthernEnvironment.org

About the Dan River Basin Association

The Dan River Basin Association was created by residents to protect and promote the natural and cultural assets of the 3,300 square mile Dan River basin in Virginia and North Carolina through education, recreation and stewardship. www.danriver.org

About the Roanoke River Basin Association

The Roanoke River Basin Association is a non-profit organization based in Danville, Virginia, whose mission is to establish and carry out a strategy for the development, use, preservation and enhancement of the resources of the Roanoke River system of lakes and streams in the best interest of present and future generations.  RRBA consists of hundreds of members, primarily located within the 410-mile-long Roanoke River basin in Virginia and North Carolina, including local governments; non-profit, civic and community organizations; regional government entities; businesses and individuals.    http://prod.rrba.org/.

About the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is a nonprofit organization that promotes responsible energy choices that create global warming solutions and ensure clean, safe, and healthy communities throughout the Southeast.

www.cleanenergy.org

About Waterkeeper Alliance

Founded in 1999 by environmental attorney and activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and several veteran Waterkeeper Organizations, Waterkeeper Alliance is a global movement of on-the-water advocates who patrol and protect over 100,000 miles of rivers, streams and coastlines in North and South America, Europe, Australia, Asia and Africa.

The case for active government regulation in the environmental sphere

Duke Energy’s most recent discharge of coal ash into the Dan River – “enough coal ash to coat 70 miles of the Dan River with toxic sludge” – provides another example of why active government regulation is necessary to protect environmental and human health. With the recent rise of radical free market ideas into mainstream politics and the Republican Party consolidation of political power in a number of states across the United States, active government regulation in the environmental sphere was deemphasized in favor of “pro-business” policies. Such pro-business policies place a much greater stress on reducing government ‘red-tape’ and relying on private businesses to police themselves in areas of environmental regulation, in particular.

As my political beliefs have changed with time, I’ve come to believe that government involvement in a number of social and economic spheres may cause more harm than good. But this is not the case when it comes to environmental regulation.

Classical liberals typically argue, implicitly or explicitly, that self-interest is the natural basis upon which private individuals cooperate with one another in society. As part of this argument, classical liberals also argue that economic incentives drive self-interested individuals to act in one way or another. And given the ability to act freely in undisturbed markets (i.e., markets without government interference), individuals will conduct efficient economic transactions that benefit the individual and society as a whole.  

But the classical liberal argument is an intellectual pipedream which disregards the possibility that private individuals (or companies) may have an economic incentive to pollute, for example, as in the case of Duke Energy. The Huffington Post states the following: “Records show that Progress Energy, which was acquired by Duke in a 2012 mega-merger, bought five acres adjacent to its coal-fired power plant near Asheville for about $1.1 million — a price tag far below what it would have cost to clean out its leaking coal ash pits.”

I would like nothing more than to agree with the classical liberal argument that government involvement and active regulation specifically regarding environmental pollution is an unnecessary policy solution. However, there are no free market solutions for issues of environmental pollution because the economic incentives to pollute are too great.

Maybe in a more perfect time and place, companies like Duke Energy would behave according to the high-minded ideals of deep ecology and intergenerational justice, as well as practical concerns such as human and environmental health. We’re not living in such a time and place, though. In our own context, businesses respond to calculated cost versus benefit analyses that favor short-term monetary gain. If the ‘free hand’ of the market were left to itself, the rest of the body would soon die of some environmentally related illness. 

The toxic coal ash legacy left for residents of Southern VA and Eden, NC

Maybe tomorrow, or the week after next, the coal ash spill in Eden, North Carolina will recede from the media’s and the public’s memory as novel news stories take center stage. But for residents of Eden, North Carolina and Southern Virginia, the coal ash spill will likely leave a toxic legacy that lasts at least a generation.

In early February, a 48-inch storm pipe at a Duke Energy coal ash pond in North Carolina ‘leaked’ thousands of tons of coal ash into the Dan River. Not too long thereafter, a second leak was found in a different 36-inch storm pipe that still has not been fully contained.

For all of their apologies in the wake of both storm pipe leaks, Duke Energy broke a promise that every U.S. energy company implicitly or explicitly makes with the residents around which its facilities are located: it neglected to take the proper steps to ensure that its business practices did not negatively affect human, wildlife, and environmental health. And now the residents affected by the coal ash spill will have to bear the burden of Duke Energy’s cost-saving business practices.

Even worse for residents directly affected by Duke Energy’s most recent environmental disaster, the public relations game that’s usually played, and the lip service which is usually paid by the offending entity and their governmental partners, doesn’t always translate into pre-spill levels of remediation. Indeed, when it comes to a spill the size of Duke Energy’s, the best remedial outcome may be achieving a particular pre-spill level of water quality that maintains human and environmental health.

While most Virginians and North Carolinian’s go on with their lives with only a residual memory of this incident in the months and years to come, history has demonstrated that without a constant stream of public attention and pressure, companies like Duke Energy quickly return to business as usual. As long as the spotlight is on them, Duke Energy will attempt to appear humbled and on the road to long-lasting reforms that mitigate any events like the coal ash spills from happening again in the future.

But the bottom line for Duke Energy is…the bottom line. Duke Energy’s upper management no more cares about environmental health than it does about the potential for multiple dimensions of reality. Duke Energy’s primary impulse is turning a larger and larger profit each quarter, not safety precautions, as witnessed by this most recent spill of toxic coal ash.

The solution is a regulatory framework that won’t allow Duke Energy to shun its legal and moral duties. The solution is also understanding that regulations are not inimical to free markets. In fact, environmental regulations may be the only instrument that allows free markets to work efficiently without destroying the natural environment upon which companies like Duke Energy depend. 

Justice Department subpoena’s DENR, but McCrory may walk away unscathed

Following the U.S. Justice Department’s announcement that a criminal investigation will be launched into the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) after the release of over 82,000 gallons (more or less depending on your source) of coal ash into the Dan River, it remains to be seen how the federal investigation will affect North Carolina’s Gov. Pat McCrory, a former employee of Duke Energy for 28 years.

Although the specific aim of the Justice Department’s investigation cannot be disclosed, a letter attached to the subpoena that was sent to the DENR states, “An official criminal investigation of a suspected felony is being conducted by the United States and a federal grand jury.”

After the coal ash spill was discovered on February 2^nd, it was not until February 3^rd that the spill was disclosed to the public and even then, Duke Energy and the DENR “failed to disclose the massive scale of the problem – one that has been described as the third largest such coal ash spill in the nation.”

Given the DENR’s questionable reactions following the Duke Energy coal ash spill into the Dan River and North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory’s reported close ties to his former employer, a complex picture has emerged that puts DENR’s regulatory relationship with Duke Energy in more of a ‘friendly’ role, a role that could be deemed by the U.S. Department of Justice as illegal.  

Assuming that the Department of Justice finds evidence that the DENR was criminally negligent in carrying out its regulatory function with Duke Energy, the root cause (Gov. Pat McCrory) could end up walking away from this incident with a few political bumps and bruises. That is, if Gov. Pat McCrory was responsible for the DENR’s ‘cozy’ relationship with Duke Energy, an expanded investigation by the Justice Department may be the only way to reveal the former’s legal transgressions.

Regulatory agencies like the DENR don’t act in a vacuum. Orders, directives, guidance, etc. come down from superiors (e.g., the governor) that shape the regulatory environment, be it business friendly, passive, or aggressive in its pursuit of regulatory transgressions.

Under Pat McCrory, a fairly clear picture has taken shape showing a DENR more concerned with protecting the interests of Duke Energy than with protecting the interests of the citizens of North Carolina.

And lost in this discussion are the residents of Southside Virginia and North Carolina who must deal with the consequences of Duke Energy’s mistakes. As usual, it’s these largely unheard voices that must bear the brunt of this latest environmental disaster. 

Put your dukes up, it’s time to confront perverse incentives and environmental ‘spills’

The most recent spill by Duke Energy in Eden, N.C. highlights a ‘soft’ spot in the U.S.’s economic system that reinforces the argument for stringent oversight of energy companies throughout the country. Rules and regulations have been set in place across federal, state, and local governmental levels to prevent the types of spills that residents on the border of North Carolina and Virginia now must confront. What was lacking was proper oversight by Duke Energy and the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Environment.  

To say that the U.S. system of economics has flaws is merely to state that it is a human construction liable to the same human errors of its creators. Environmental laws were created to address the flaws within the U.S. economic system, flaws that require constant oversight to achieve their stated ends: to protect and promote human and environmental health for current and future generations.  

Duke Energy, like every other player in the U.S. energy market, is under pressure to keep their costs as low as possible while increasing revenues. As a consequence, activities and objects which eat up profits can be neglected, as was the case with the coal ash that was improperly contained by Duke Energy. ‘Proper’ containment would have been a considerable investment with few, if any, short term returns that the company could put on its balance sheet. For the surrounding community as a whole, however, the benefits of environmental regulations have benefits that outweigh the costs.   

When the issue is confronted from its root, it’s easy to see that Duke Energy’s actions are a direct result of the economic incentive structures that presently exist in our country. We can look away or pretend that a new CEO or law without stringent enforcement provisions will somehow eliminate the perverse economic incentive to disregard costly environmental management best practices, but coal ash spills and train derailments with thousands of pounds of leaking toxic chemicals will remain.

Oftentimes, the issue of economic growth and environmental protection has been discussed in competing terms, as if protecting the environment inherently restrained economic growth. But there is no law of nature that states environmental protection shall inhibit economic growth.

In the short term, environmental protection may burden economic growth, but there is no gain where there is no pain, as the saying goes. Unfortunately for the residents who looked to the Dan River for drinking water and aesthetic beauty, the pain of a sullied body of water is very real, and there is little gain to be found. 

Duke Energy public relations machine continues in full swing in Danville, VA

When a drunk driver is arrested and tried, Virginia’s law system doesn’t allow for an apology and a swift return to business as usual. Yet, when companies like Duke Energy break the law, our system of laws bends to the point of breaking (and sometimes does break) while corporate public relations (PR) teams kick into high gear to repair any damage done to their ‘brand’ following the legal infraction.  

On Friday, Duke Energy deployed one of its first lines of PR damage control in the form of a question and answer session in Danville, VA with Duke Energy operations president, Paul Newton. According to Newton, “Duke Energy takes full responsibility and will "make it right."” What would a judge say to a drunk driver who caused thousands of dollars in damages who made this statement? Do you think the drunk driver would just be sent home with a moral opprobrium?  

According to officials from Duke Energy, the pipe that would eventually send at least 82,000 tons of coal ash into an Eden, NC river was installed in the 1960s and does not meet present-day standards. Such an omission directly contradicts a statement Duke Energy posted on its website before the recent coal ash spill: “We are confident that each of our coal ash ponds has the structural integrity necessary to protect the public and the environment.” Unfortunately, Duke Energy was wrong.

Duke Energy is not the first, nor will it be the last, energy company to ‘overlook’ safety and environmental issues to make quarterly earnings look a little bit fatter. The Dominion Virginia Power’s and Duke Energy’s of the country know full well that as long as the costs of complying with industry standards and environmental regulations don’t outweigh the benefits of doing little or nothing, the latter will be done to the potential detriment of human and environmental safety.

And if this premise holds true, then it’s yet another reason for Virginia to continue holding steady with its ban on uranium mining. If Virginia Uranium Inc., or any other company which may take its place in the future, decides that it will be cheaper to ignore environmental regulations, it very well may do so even if it means leaving a hazardous waste behind for future generations to wrestle with.

Duke Energy is merely a symptom of a law and regulatory system that is slanted in favor of short-term economic gain. Go get your stockpile of bottled drinking water because the chances are that an environmental spill affecting your drinking water is coming to a town near you.

HB 363, Del. Kaye Kory’s common sense public and environmental health bill

On a distant planet, one much like ours, called ‘common sense’, there exists an economic system that not only promotes continual growth, but one that also takes human and environmental health into consideration when new projects are being proposed. Unfortunately for many economies on planet earth, we’re light years away. But there is hope.

Come 2014 and Virginia Delegate Kaye Kory’s HB 363 (Electric Utility Regulation; Approval of Generation Facilities), a bill that would require the State Corporation Commission to consider public health and environmental costs when reviewing new generation projects, according to the Virginia Conservation Network.

While HB 363 may be a modest piece of legislation relative to what could be contrived, it could go a long way in saving lives, environmental health, and ultimately, money. Three cheers for Del. Kory. She must be one of those few who have ventured from planet ‘common sense’ to spread their wisdom on earth. 

“Fuel Up to Play 60” grants landed by 6 Richmond elementary schools

If food is indeed a medicine, as the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates concluded over 2,000 years ago, Virginia has been feeding its youth pretty bad medicine for some time now. Although nutritional information across Virginia’s various school districts over the past decade is difficult to find, one needs only recall the school lunches that our own elementary and middle schools served…

While Virginia still isn’t a ‘healthy eating’ paragon, there are a number of signs that the state’s schools are getting serious about offering their students meals that are both tasty and full of nutritional punch. Of course, some school districts are better nutritional stewards than others at the moment.

Richmond could be considered among those regions in Virginia who stand to improve on their healthy eating opportunities. So it was with considerable excitement that six elementary schools in Richmond were awarded the “Fuel Up to Play 60” grants to “improve opportunities for healthy eating and physical fitness among students.”

The grants program is being run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in collaboration with two equally powerful representatives of America’s turn towards health (sarcasm): the National Dairy Council and the National Football League (NFL).

Removing the NFL from the healthy school menus equation for a moment, it’s disturbing that an organization that has so baldly lied to the American people about the potential effects of its products would be involved in any campaign that involves the dietary choices of Virginia’s school-age children. If the National Dairy Council were truly serious about reforming the food menus in Virginia’s schools, it would replace its factory produced milk products with those produced by grass fed and naturally raised cows. If you’re thinking that’s not very likely, I’d agree.

As long as powerful industry lobby groups like the National Dairy Council have a place at the policymaking table, Virginia’s school children will likely be the ones ultimately footing the bill of ill health as attempts to reform our state’s food menus remain just that, patchy attempts. But if Virginia wishes to raise a new generation of happy and healthy kids, it will have to shrug off the lobbying might of food industry groups whose main goal is profit, not a more fit and festive youth generation. 

Terry McAuliffe sets tone as governor on first day while expectations remain high

Now-Governor Terry McAuliffe’s “sweeping” executive order that prohibits gifts above $100 on members of the executive branch may have set the tone for the governor’s first day in office, but it also raised the expectations of those who see McAuliffe as Virginia’s best chance of restoring the balance of political influence between the average citizen of Virginia and moneyed businesses and individuals.

McAuliffe’s first day of governor of Virginia not only highlighted McAuliffe’s vision for the commonwealth over the next four years, it also reminded Virginians of the scandals and controversy that engulfed the previous governor’s final year in office. No executive administration in recent Virginia history made the contrast between the influence of moneyed groups relative to the average Virginian more stark than that of the McDonnell administration.

As one example, Gov. Bob McDonnell seemed to do everything he could to undermine the concerns voiced by Virginians over the issue of uranium mining, going so far as to exclude citizens groups from the Uranium Working Group while inviting Virginia Uranium, Inc. (VUI) lobbyist. Were it not for the adamant protests of citizens groups, it is highly likely that McDonnell would have asked for a regulatory framework to be written regarding uranium mining and milling before the moratorium was lifted, something the former governor’s friends at VUI would have appreciated.

McAuliffe’s first day as governor quickly set the tone for an executive branch that is just as beholden to the ‘Joe six-pack’ Virginian as it is to CEO’s of multi-million dollar companies. And while it’s true that interested parties with the means and motives to subvert government regulations often find ways to do so, the symbolic significance of McAuliffe’s executive order should be taken seriously.

Now, however, the governor has put himself squarely in the corner of reformer, and many of the Virginians who supported McAuliffe’s candidacy will expect more of the same over the coming years for issues ranging from abortion to fossil fuel reliance.

If ever there were a political candidate with the energy, intelligence, and personal charisma to keep Virginia moving forward with sensible reforms, that person would be Terry McAuliffe. At least, that’s what I hoping for.

Partisan blinders among Virginia’s voters shouldn't disallow fair assessment of McAuliffe

Virginia’s Governor-elect, Terry McAuliffe, got active over the weekend as he visited Women Giving Back, an organization based out of Sterling, VA that assists “transitionally homeless women and children get on their feet with clothes to help them enter the workplace.” Saturday was also a day that McAuliffe called on all Virginians to help out in their communities to highlight “how we can all come together to help one another.”

As McAuliffe prepares to be formally sworn in as Virginia’s 72^nd governor on January 11^th, it’s my hope that supporters and non-supporters of the former Democratic National Committee chairman will commit themselves to a balanced assessment of McAuliffe’s performance as governor, as opposed to the partisan mindset that has affected U.S. voters over the last few years in particular.

For supporters of McAuliffe, this means holding his feet to the fire if he abandons campaign promises or compromises fundamental Democratic Party values. It also means giving the Governor-elect praise when he carries out his campaign promises and furthers the Democratic Party agenda. Lastly, it means expecting reasonable compromises to be reached with Democratic and Republican Party colleagues in the legislature.

For non-supporters of McAuliffe, the Governor-elect should be judged by his willingness to listen to all applicable stakeholders and to make policy decisions based upon what is the best option for everyone involved. The Governor-elect should not be expected to abandon basic Democratic Party values or cave to unreasonable demands expressed by members of his own party or that of the GOP.

If anyone can convincingly argue that the partisan divide that defined politics in the U.S. over the past few years in particular have been more of a boon than a bane, then I’d like to hear it. But it should be clear to any reasonable observer that the partisan divide has only weakened the country in a number of notable ways. As Abraham Lincoln noted, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I’d also add that for a house divided , elected representatives on “our” side are often given a get-out-jail-free card that would not otherwise be granted, inhibiting an important ‘internal’ political check. McAuliffe deserves the benefit of the doubt, but he also deserves the full brunt of his supporter’s disapproval if his campaign platform falls by the wayside or he compromises basic Democratic Party values. 

Another U.S. divide: institutional players and the individual

As income disparities have continued to increase in the United States, the disparity between punishments meted out to so-called institutional players and individuals in the U.S. has also been a distinguishing disparity of the 21^st Century. In the wake of the economic recession which struck the U.S. in 2008, “too big to fail” financial institutions were all but given a slap on the wrist that “undermines the public’s confidence in our institutions and in the [principle] that the law is applied equally in all cases. “

While U.S. financial institutions put the global economy and U.S. national security at risk, these ‘institutional players’ walked away from the recession with a few bruises and a renewed sense of their own fundamental importance. Edward Snowden, on the other hand, also undermined U.S. national security (according to some) by releasing confidential National Security Agency (NSA) documents to various journalists and media outlets. Snowden, however, faces up to 30 years in prison, hardly a slap on the wrist.

Although a less significant example, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s recent refusal to increase the fines levied against Virginia Tech following the April 16, 2007 campus shooting to a mere $27,500 represents another case of an institutional player walking away from violations of the law (i.e., the Clery Act) as well as its own policy for issuing warnings regarding threats on campus.

After the Department of Education initially imposed a $27,500 fine for the violations, Judge Ernest Canellos reduced to the fine to $5,000, citing inconsistency in penalizing similar violations of the law. Arne Duncan then refused to reimpose the original $27,500 fine after being asked by his own department.

Not only is $27,500 a drop in the bucket to a big name school like Virginia Tech, more significantly the $27,500 fine was a symbol of the U.S. government’s ability and willingness to hold institutional players fully responsible for their actions (or inactions). What Duncan’s decision has once again re-ingrained in the minds of leaders of institutions such as universities is that their actions are not subject to the same (and stricter) laws that individuals in the U.S. are subject to. In effect, then, a legal divide has also grown more visible between institutional players in the U.S. and the individual over the course of the 21^st Century.

While public opinion has waxed and waned on how and when the U.S. will lose its position as the global superpower (e.g., China), the irony is that the U.S. is doing more to harm itself by creating multiple social and economic divides than almost any external factor could hope to do over the short term. The power of the U.S. does not have to recede, but it will as long as the U.S. remains divided against itself. 

Mental health services reform in Virginia seems likely in 2014

It may have taken a tragedy, but Sen. George Barker (Alexandria) and Del. Rob Bell (Charlottesville) took the first steps towards reforming Virginia’s mental health system by introducing bills that will allow facilities charged with holding individuals in temporary detention or emergency custody to do so longer than previously allowed. 3 of these bills include SB115, HB293 and HB294.

Although Michael Martz of the Richmond Times Dispatch ascribes 2 of these bills to Del. Joseph Yost (Blacksburg), he nonetheless provides a good summary of what changes are in store if passed.

In a state that is very much inclined towards less government control in the lives of individuals, it almost seemed inevitable that a tragedy would have to occur before Virginia’s lawmakers finally moved to reform the state’s health care system. A tragedy is exactly what occurred, befalling one of the legislature’s very own.

Virginia presents a great experimental ground, then, for finding a middle-ground between civil liberties and social welfare with regards to mental health. Holding anyone against their will is abhorrent to many Virginians including myself, but in a number of cases extensions of temporary detention orders and emergency custody may be necessary for public safety. Virginia’s (Republican) lawmakers appear to be finally realizing this point.

But within the conversation about detention periods and psychiatric bed location procedures, what is left out is the critical need to focus more resources on preventing acts of violence related to mental health in the first place by treating individuals. Executive director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of Virginia, Mira Signer, makes this point: “None of this can be done in a vacuum. You’ve got to have more resources.”

Contrary to a myth believed by some within the ranks of the Republican Party, investing in the well-being of individuals is not an unnecessary ‘handout’. That is, there are many Virginians in particular, and Americans in general, who genuinely need state and/or federal assistance to overcome their mental health adversities.

The real irony is that after so many different tragedies over such a broad expanse of time, you would think that anyone who isn’t onboard with mental health reform are truly the ones who need to have their heads examined, metaphorically speaking.

Mental health services in Virginia continue to take center stage after series of ‘incidents’

In a recent report by the Richmond Times Dispatch, the list of available psychiatric beds at public and private hospitals was delayed by budget cuts and “other priorities,” shining an even brighter spotlight on Virginia’s mental health system and the budgetary problems that have undermined its effectiveness.

In June 2012, the commissioner of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, James W. Stewart III, stated that the software needed to run the Virginia Acute Psychiatric and CSB Bed Registry “is completed,” paving the way for a Web registry for psychiatric beds at public and private hospitals in addition to units run by local community services boards.

Virginia’s mental health system has been given greater public attention following the suicide of Virginia Sen. Creigh Deeds’ son, Austin C. “Gus” Deeds. After being admitted into emergency custody, Gus Deeds was released after no psychiatric bed could be located for him. That is, another death that could have easily been prevented became another unfortunate consequence of the Republican Party’s ceaseless efforts to ‘slash’ budget deficits in Virginia and throughout the country.

While no political party is guilt free, the Republican Party’s ideological insistence on “balancing the budget” and individual responsibility have left it either unwilling or incapable of dealing appropriately with mental health services. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, an estimated 26.2 percent of 

Americans ages 18 and older have a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. The problem of mental health in the U.S. is not going away, in other words. And as long as individuals and groups neglect to hold the Republican Party accountable for its inaction or counter-actions regarding mental health services, mental health problems will not decrease and may even grow with time. 

Terry McAuliffe’s governing inexperience may prove to be a boon for Virginia

Much has been made of Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe’s lack of experience managing the affairs of government. In a recent interview, Mr. McAuliffe acknowledged the skepticism surrounding his ability to govern as well as the reasons why he’ll be an effective governor.

While it’s true that experience is helpful in just about any occupation that comes to mind, Terry McAuliffe will have a number of advisers and cabinet officials that will assist the former Democratic Party fundraiser while he settles in to his new role as governor.

But all of the talk about government experience and its perceived correlation to governing effectiveness has left out the idea that a lack of governing experience may be more of an advantage than a disadvantage. Mr. McAuliffe may not have the personal relationships, the political know-how, or the confidence of more experienced Virginia politicians, but McAuliffe also doesn’t have the personal baggage or entrenched perceptions based upon prior experiences that could inhibit more experienced individuals from being effective governors. In other words, McAuliffe’s ‘blank slate’ could be an opportunity to take on old policy challenges from a new, ‘outsiders’, perspective.

As with any institution, there are rules and norms that members abide by explicitly or implicitly, a culture that every member affirms and reaffirms through their thoughts or behaviors. Virginia government is no different in this respect; each branch of Virginia’s government has its own culture, a set of ideas and beliefs that members either knowingly or unknowingly view the world with.

While an institutional culture may be the catalyst for creativity and innovative problem-solving, government is in essence a conservative institution bent towards maintaining the status quo until the status quo becomes unsustainable. Terry McAuliffe has had little involvement with this institution as a member of Virginia’s government.

McAuliffe represents a ‘fresh’ pair of eyes that could be just what the commonwealth needs to overcome many of the issues that have confounded previous governors such as transportation, energy, women’s rights, political party relations, and so on. There are no easy solutions, of course, but perhaps McAuliffe’s governing inexperience could turn out to be his greatest asset. 

Exploration permit 90484EX quietly renewed for Virginia Uranium Inc.

In case anyone needed additional evidence that Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) hasn’t given up on lifting Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining, Exploration Permit 90484EX was renewed on November 13^th, 2013 and will remain in effect until November 20^th, 2014. The permit was first issued to VUI in 2007.

With billions of dollars worth of uranium ore deposits on the line, it’s not surprising that VUI has taken a long-term approach to achieving its goal of lifting Virginia’s ban on mining uranium. Once believed to be an inevitable short-term outcome, VUI has had to settle for waiting at least another 4 years before there is a serious chance of mining uranium in the state.

For many residents of Southside Virginia, VUI has been a symbol of the tension between capitalism and democratic governance in our modern era. While some polls have shown a close split among Virginians who favor or oppose uranium mining, no polls that I am aware of have been targeted towards the people of Southside Virginia, where the uranium mining would actually take place. With all due respect to Virginians living outside the Southside, your backyard isn’t the one where the process of uranium mining will take place (at least, not yet).

As long as a majority of Southside Virginians wish to retain the moratorium on uranium mining and the process remains open to considerable risk, the question about whether or not the moratorium should be lifted is moot. The communities that will be most directly affected by this decision should be the ones who have the final say in whether or not the process is started. Isn’t this a large part of what our democratic form of government is about?

Virginia Uranium Inc. throws in the towel until political winds blow favorably

In a not so unfortunate turn of events, Virginia Uranium Inc. (VUI) announced that it would be “suspending its campaign” to purge Virginia of its uranium ore deposits due to the opposition that Governor-elect Terry McAuliffe has publicly voiced for this risky enterprise.

VUI’s faithful ally in the Virginia General Assembly, Sen. John Watkins, had planned on reintroducing legislation in 2014 that would allow uranium mining in Virginia to occur. During the 2013 session of the General Assembly, Watkins’ legislation never made it out of the Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources committee.

The “low-key” announcement made by VUI marks a significant short-term victory for opponents of uranium mining in Virginia, marking the culmination of years of raising public awareness about the risks of uranium mining and milling, particularly in a wet climate like Virginia’s.

With billions of dollars on the line, however, there won’t be any shortage of attempts by groups to lift the moratorium on uranium mining, a moratorium that has been held in place since 1982. According to the VUI project manager, Patrick Wales, "We are in this for the long haul and are committed to developing the Coles Hill project. We will continue evaluating all options to move the project forward." And by “all options,” Wales must have also meant half-truths and spurious scientific correlations.

So while Virginians concerned about the vitality of their state can breathe a collective sigh of relief for now, my hope is that Virginians do not completely wipe this issue off of their ‘radars’. VUI has made it clear that the towel is not being thrown in indefinitely.

For all of the Virginians who worked tirelessly to achieve this victory for the commonwealth, enough thanks cannot be given! Many of their names will probably never be household names in the state, but they deserve just as much praise and gratitude as some of Virginia’s most memorial historical figures. Only time will tell, but the contribution of these individuals could one day prove to be absolutely priceless. 

So much for Mark Obenshain’s graceful election defeat for attorney general

As the deadline approaches to formally challenge the results of the November 5^th attorney general’s election, Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain’s lead attorney gave the first indication on Monday that the election could be contested in the Virginia General Assembly if the votes don’t end in Obenshain’s corner. So much for a graceful election defeat…

In front of a three judge court overseeing the recount in the attorney general’s race, Obenshain’s lead attorney, William H. Hurd, stated that it is “critically important” for his legal team to obtain complete access data from electronic poll books before the Dec. 23^rd deadline to formally contest the results of the election in the General Assembly.

Under Virginia law, Obenshain could legally request that a joint session of the Virginia legislature reverse the results of the attorney general’s election. According to the Times Dispatch, “grounds for a contest include objections to “the conduct or results of the election accompanied by specific allegations which, if proven true, would have a probable impact on the outcome of the election.”” That is, prepare for Obenshain and/or his team of legal henchmen to make “specific allegations” that could overturn the election’s results.

Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the court’s ruling on specific ballot recount specifications, the Virginia-wide recount has been set for Dec. 17-18, leaving 72 hours for either candidate to challenge the ballot results.

Although no one can reasonably blame Mr. Obenshain for asking for a statewide recount in an election decided by 165 votes, Virginians will have cause for outrage if Obenshain swings the ultimate outcome of the election to the Virginia General Assembly, an institution “dominated” by Obenshain’s Republican Party.

If we are to assume that Republicans in the legislature will allow party politics to trump ethics and individual integrity (big assumption, I know), the Republican Party could in effect overturn the will of a majority of Virginians on trumped up allegations.

Not only would this set of events undermine the democratic process in Virginia, it would also set up an increasingly toxic relationship between the Democratic and Republican parties as the 2014 session of the General Assembly nears. Neither scenario seems particularly optimal, to say the least.

Here’s hoping that the Democratic Party doesn’t role over as usual in the face of Republican Party aggression.  

The world’s smallest violin is playing for Ken Cuccinelli and his victimization rhetoric

An immediate Cuccinelli political comeback was dispelled on Saturday during a dinner speech at The Homestead Resort. According to one source, Ken Cuccinelli stated “I don’t mind not having an elected role in about a month or so. I’ve been in office 11 years… I look forward to a little bit of a break. … but I’ll be back with you. I’m not talking as a candidate, but just fighting for these principles because I believe in them.”

Before anyone except staunch Cuccinelli supporters get too excited, the attorney general’s words seem more like those of a man still licking his wounds from a recent election defeat rather than those of someone who’s given himself enough time to make a resolute long term decision. And if there is one thing that Virginians should know by now, it’s not to trust a good deal of what Ken Cuccinelli says.

Cuccinelli’s defense of his election defeat should also leave anyone interested more than a little suspect about Cuccinelli’s intentions to stay out of electoral politics. The ‘blame the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) for not supporting me’ defense that Cuccinelli has been playing sets this one-time tea party hero into the role of victim, a good position to put oneself in if and when Cuccinelli ever decided to re-enter politics.

By setting himself up as the victim of ‘unfaithful’ or ‘compromising’ RPV members, Cuccinelli not only shrugs the blame for the election defeat off of his shoulders, he also scores cookie points with a Republican Party base that seems disillusioned with what have been called “establishment” Republicans.

If we learn nothing else from Cuccinelli’s most recent public speech to the Republican Party faithful, however, we should be able to discern a man that is far from being a leader that Virginia wants or needs, a man who is too proud and too blinded by his own ideological beliefs to concede blame for his own political defeat. In typical Cuccinelli-fashion, everyone else is to blame, not him.  

Casinos or no casinos, a real gamble for Virginia

While Virginia’s legislators have held steady against the growing tide of casinos spreading across the U.S., there are millions of reasons to believe that it’s only a matter of time before the commonwealth folds, even if legislative opposition is still strong.

According to the Washington Post, there are casinos in “various forms” across 39 states in the U.S. Twenty-five years ago, casinos were limited to New Jersey and Nevada. While these two cities remained the top earners in 2012, there were six other cities/states that raked in over one billion dollars in annual revenue during 2012. Even in the best of economic times, it’s difficult to look the other way at the potential state income generated by the casino industry.

While moral arguments have long been used to deflate attempts to legalize casinos in Virginia, critics of legalizing casinos have also cited the correlation between casinos, crime, substance abuse, and mental illness (i.e., the social corruption argument). There appears to be statistically significant evidence to prove such a correlation exists, albeit with a few reservations for factors that are difficult to control for.

As more evidence accumulates from states where casinos are legal, Virginia’s citizens and legislators can come to more informed conclusions about what effect legalizing casinos could have in Virginia. If it can be shown that casinos do not have a strong correlation to social corruption, the legalization of casinos could be well on its way in the commonwealth.

Regardless, there are millions of reasons why legalizing casinos in Virginia may go ahead anyways. While Virginia has shown a slow but steady economic recovery following the last economic recession, casinos will prove to be a very tempting source of revenue if and when a new economic recession/depression sweeps through the state.